The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and
impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in
serving as Panelists in this proceeding.

Diane Cabell, Jeffrey Mausner and Alan L. Limbury as Panelists.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum
electronically on March 20, 2007; the
National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 26, 2007.

On March 21, 2007, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National
Arbitration Forum that the <goltv.com> domain name is registered
with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is
the current registrant of the name.Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Enom, Inc. registration
agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by
third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (“the Policy”).

On March 29, 2007, the National Arbitration Forum drew to Complainant’s
attention certain formal deficiencies in the Complaint. On April 2, 2007, Complainant submitted a
Revised Complaint in accordance with the Policy.

On April 4, 2007, a Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement
Notification”), setting a deadline of April 24, 2007 by which Respondent could
file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail,
post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration
as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@goltv.com by e-mail.

The National Arbitration Forum received a copy of the Response
electronically on April 24, 2007, but did not receive a hard copy until April
26, 2007, after the deadline for Response.On April 27, 2007, Respondent submitted an amended Response in both
electronic and hard copy format.As
these submissions were received after the deadline for Response, the National
Arbitration Forum considers the Response to be deficient according to its Supplemental
Rule 5(a). Nevertheless, given that the
initial Response was filed electronically within time and in the interests of
ensuring that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, the
Panel has taken the amended Response into account in the exercise of its
general powers under Rule 10 of ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (“the Rules”).

A timely Additional Submission was received from Complainant on May 1,
2007 and determined to be complete according to Supplemental Rule 7.

On May 2, 2007, pursuant to Respondent’s request
to have the dispute decided by a three-member
Panel, the National Arbitration Forum
appointed Diane Cabell, Jeffrey Mausner and Alan L. Limbury as Panelists.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges
that since February 2003 it has been using the trademark ‘GOLTV and design’ in
connection with a cable-network TV channel business which broadcasts sports-related
programs including more than 1,500 soccer games per year to more than 65
million viewers. The word “gol”
translates as “goal” in English.

On May 17, 2005,
Complainant became the registrant of United States trademark No.
2,952,999 ‘GOLTV and design’ for “television broadcasting of sports,” with a
disclaimer as to “TV” and claiming first use in commerce on February 20, 2003.

On January 25,
2005, Complainant became the registrant of United States trademark No.
2,921,132, ‘GOLTV’ for “production of sports television programs; entertainment
in the nature of ongoing television programs in the field of sports,” with a
disclaimer as to “TV” and claiming first use in commerce on February 28, 2003.

Complainant is
also the registrant of the domain name <goltv.tv>, which it uses to
promote its TV channel business.

Complainant says
the disputed domain name <goltv.com>
is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark GOLTV
and its <goltv.tv> domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise
permitted Respondent to use that mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent cannot show that it was commonly
known by the name "goltv."Its
website is merely a link to a home page where Respondent posts advertisements,
including ads relating to soccer, to make money until the domain name is sold. Respondent is capitalizing on Complainant's
trademark rights.

Complainant says Respondent’s
domain name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad
faith because, by using a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant's
registered mark to sell advertising related to soccer, Respondent has created a
likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of its website or of products or services offered through its website. Further,
Complainant says Respondent is using the domain name primarily for the purpose
of disrupting the business of Complainant.

B. Respondent

Respondent alleges
that “GOLTV” stands for “Global Online Television” and that the disputed domain
name <goltv.com> was
registered on January 5, 2000 with the purpose of aggregating links and media
around the concept of “Global Online Television.”This domain name is one of approximately 3500
“Global,” ”Global Online” and ”GOL” domain names registered by or on behalf of
Global Online, Inc., a company founded in 1993 by Dr.Christopher Hartnett. Global Online, Inc. was a pioneer in Internet-related
services, serving as one of the world’s first international web-based meta-hub
portals on the Internet with over 5860 separate and distinct websites. It has marketed the initials “GOL” as the
abbreviation for “Global Online.”

Because of the
large number of domain names under registration, approximately seven years ago Global
Online, Inc. retained Respondent, Onyx Domain Solutions, Inc., to service and
manage its portfolio, including the disputed domain name.

Respondent relies
on the facts that, according to the Complaint, Complainant began its cable
television service focused on soccer entertainment in approximately February
2003 and registered the domain name <goltv.tv> on March 2, 2002.Respondent submits that this sequence of
events makes four things absolutely clear:

·When Global
Online, Inc. registered the disputed domain name on January 5, 2000, it had no
knowledge of Complainant or any cable channel operating under the name “GOL TV,”
since it did not exist at that time.

·When Complainant
launched its soccer cable television business and selected its own domain name
in the .tv top-level domain, it was aware of the prior registration of Global Online,
Inc.

·When Complainant
applied for a trademark registration on May 2, 2002, it was aware of the prior domain
name registration of Global Online, Inc.

·When Complainant
first used the phrase “GOL TV” in commerce on February 28, 2003, it was aware
of the prior registration of Global Online, Inc.

Respondent submits
it is likely Complainant attempted to register the disputed domain name and
learned that it was unavailable. Even if
.tv was its first choice of a domain name, this Panel can attribute Complainant
with constructiveknowledge
of the prior registration of the disputed domain name, which would have been
apparent to anyone who wished to look for it in the Whois database.

Respondent says
that neither Dr. Hartnett nor Mr. Heflin, the owner of Respondent, were aware
of any third-party interest in the disputed domain name until counsel for
Complainant attempted to purchase it on behalf of a client. Each offer was declined.Counsel for Complainant initiated the offers
and solicited Respondent to sell the name, yet these details were omitted from
the Complaint.

Respondent says it
registered the disputed domain name at least two years before Complainant
started its business. With no possible
knowledge, actual or constructive, of Complainant’s business, its
yet-to-be-applied-for service mark registration, or its yet-to-be-registered .tv
domain name registration, Respondent could not possibly have registered the disputed
domain name in bad faith.

The only evidence
offered by Complainant on the issue of bad faith is the suggestion that Global
Online, Inc. and Respondent placed links to soccer-related advertisements on
the website at the <goltv.com>
domain name.Respondent replied that from time to time, it
uses a third-party advertising service to serve content-related advertisements
as a means of defraying the costs of maintaining Global Online, Inc.’s websites
and services. That content is selected by the service provider, not by
Respondent or Global Online, Inc. As
soon as Mr. Heflin received the Complaint (Respondent’s first notice of this
dispute), he instructed the third-party advertising service to stop serving any
soccer-related links. This prompt
response establishes the good faithof Respondent.

Respondent says
Complainant knowingly started its business with a domain name unavailable in
.COM. This Complaint was brought only
after Complainant attempted to buy the domain name and was rebuffed. That attempt was made by the very attorney
representing Complainant here, but the details of the offer and the response
are not mentioned in the Complaint. This
omission lays bare the real intention of Complainant: to purloin through the Policy
process what it could not purchase in the marketplace. This is reverse domain name hijacking.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant sets out a chronology of events based on archived material which,
it contends, demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, as per paragraph
4(b)(iv) of the Policy. That chronology
begins on May 6, 2001. It shows the
website at the disputed domain name being used as a global television portal;
as later advertising the disputed domain name for sale; and between December
18, 2005 and March 6, 2006 (the last date for which archived images are
available) as using the title “SOCCER” and including pictures of soccer players
in action and other sports-related material.

Complainant says this shows that Respondent did not commence use of the
disputed domain name for soccer and/or sports programming until nearly one year
after the registration of Complainant’s trademarks and nearly two years after
Complainant began broadcasting soccer games throughout the United States using its trademarks.

Complainant says Respondent cannot justify allowing the disputed domain
name to be used in a manner so as to infringe Complainant’s trademark rights,
as it did from at least December 18, 2005 until the filing of the Complaint,
simply by stating that Respondent gave a third party the unfettered right to
place banner advertisements on the site. Whether or not Respondent actually knew or
should have known of Complainant’s trademark rights, Respondent’s refusal to
sell the disputed domain name to Complainant, coupled with its deliberate use
of the disputed domain name from December 2005 to March 2006 in connection with
soccer and sports, further supports Complainant’s contention that the disputed
domain name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad
faith.

Complainant denies reverse domain name hijacking.

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish all the
elements entitling it to relief.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel
to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted
in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law
that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each
of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be
cancelled or transferred:

(1)the domain name registered by Respondent is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights;

(2)Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)the domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith.

Complainant clearly has rights in its two registered trademarks ‘GOLTV
and design’ and ‘GOLTV.’

It is well established that the specific top level
of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain
name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly
similar.SeeMagnum Piering, Inc. v.
The Mudjackers, D2000-1525 (WIPO Jan. 29, 2001); Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

The disputed domain name is clearly
identical to Complainant’s GOLTV mark.Complainant
has established this element of its case.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has provided declarations, signed
under penalty of perjury, from Dr. Hartnett, the founder in 1993 of Global
Online, Inc. and Mr. Heflin, founder and principal of Respondent.

The Panel accepts that, prior to any notice
to Respondent of this dispute, and indeed prior to the start of Complainant’s
business and the registration of its trademarks, the disputed domain name was
used by Respondent in connection with a bona
fide offering of services, in that the disputed domain name formed part of
a portfolio of “Global Online” domain names advertised under the “GOL” brand by
Global Online, Inc. in connection with the provision of Internet portals; and
that, pursuant to an arrangement with Global Online, Inc., Mr. Heflin and Respondent
supervised and managed that portfolio.

This demonstrates Respondent’s rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i)
of the Policy.[1]Complainant has failed to establish this
element of its case.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant did not
start its soccer-related broadcasting business and did not begin to use its
trademarks until after Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

Here Complainant does
not contend nor is there any evidence that Respondent was aware of the
existence of Complainant when Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
Since it is necessary for a complainant to establish bad faith registration (as
well as bad faith use), this is fatal to Complainant’s case. See Open
Sys. Computing AS v. degli Alessandri, D2000-1393 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) andInterep
Nat'l Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174 (WIPO
May 16, 2000).

As the learned
panelist put it in The Way International Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264
(WIPO May 29, 2003):

The essence of the
Complaint is an allegation of bad faith, bad faith targeted at the Complainant.
For that bad faith to be present the
cybersquatter must have actual knowledge of the existence of the trade mark
owner. If the registrant is unaware of
the existence of the trademark owner, how can he sensibly be regarded as having
any bad faith intentions directed at the Complainant?

Complainant seeks
however to rely on paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, asserting that
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with soccer after
Complainant started its soccer-related business and after Complainant had acquired
its trademark rights is use in bad faith and that, pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy, this also constitutes bad faith registration.

In considering this
submission, the Panel has taken into account prior decisions in similar
circumstances:

The
requirement of bad faith registration and use in paragraph 4(a)(iii) is stated
in the conjunctive.Registration in bad
faith is insufficient if the respondent does not use the domain name in bad
faith, and conversely, use in bad faith is insufficient if the respondent
originally registered the domain name for a permissible purpose.The first three examples in paragraph 4(b)
all refer to registration for various illegitimate purposes as evidence of
registration and use in bad faith; but in each instance bad faith use may well
be implicit in the act of registering a domain name, since all the improper
purposes mentioned can be accomplished merely by passively holding a domain
name. The fourth example (paragraph
4(b)(iv)), however, refers only to improper use, and does not appear to require
that the domain name also have been registered in bad faith.This example thus appears to conflict with
the rule set forth in paragraph 4(a)(iii).

The
panel is assisted in forming a view as to how to interpret paragraphs 4(a)(iii)
and 4(b)(iv) by the contrast between the introductory words of paragraph 4(c): “any
of the following circumstances …shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate
interests” and the introductory words of paragraph 4(b): “the following
circumstances…shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in
bad faith”.

This
contrasting language indicates that use of the kind described in 4(b)(iv) is to
be taken as evidence of bad faith registration as well as evidence of bad faith
use. But this evidence is not necessarily conclusive.Furthermore, the panel is not required to
assign substantial weight to evidence of constructive bad faith registration
furnished by paragraph 4(b)(iv), and the panel may have regard to other
evidence in determining whether the requirements of 4(a)(iii) have been proved.

This approach accords with the
Policy by enabling a finding of bad faith registration to be made where bad
faith use within 4(b)(iv) is the only evidence tending to show the purpose for
which the domain name was registered. Where, however, there is other relevant
evidence, such as evidence that the domain name was registered for a
permissible purpose, it must be weighed against any evidence of bad faith
registration constituted by evidence of bad faith use within 4(b)(iv).It is difficult to imagine circumstances in
which, under this approach, subsequent bad faith use within 4(b)(iv) would
suffice to prove that a domain name was originally registered in bad faith.

Previous decisions have considered the matter of good
faith registration followed by bad faith use. The prevailing view is that the
Policy was not designed to prevent such situations. In Substance Abuse
Management, Inc. v. Screen Actors Modesl [sic] International, Inc. (SAMI), D2001-0782
(WIPO Aug. 14, 2001), the panel stated that “If a domain name was registered in
good faith, it cannot, by changed circumstances, the passage of years, or
intervening events, later be deemed to have been registered in bad faith”. In Teradyne
Inc.Teradyne, Inc. [sic] v. 4tel Technology, D2000-0026 (WIPO May 9, 2000),
the Respondent registered a domain name to reflect its own business name but
subsequently sought to sell the name for profit when its business dissolved.
The panel found that to decide the case on the subsequent bad faith action
would ‘extend the Policy to cover cases clearly intended to be outside its
scope.’ Similarly, in Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle,
D2000-0005 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2000), the respondent registered the disputed domain
name in good faith but subsequently began to use it in bad faith. It was held
that because the registration was made in good faith the requirement of
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) was not met.

Yoomedia Dating Ltd. v. Newcomer,D2004-1085
(WIPO Feb. 22, 2005).

Accordingly, and consistent with these prior
decisions, even if the Panel were to assume that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name for soccer-related advertisements after Complainant had
established its business and registered its marks constituted bad faith use,
the fact that the domain name was registered without knowledge of Complainant, before
there was any such business and before there was any such mark, precludes any
finding of bad faith registration in this case.[2]

Complainant has failed to establish this
element of its case.

Reverse Domain Name
Hijacking

Rule 1 defines reverse
domain name hijacking as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a
registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”See
alsoRule 15(e).To
prevail on such a claim, it has been held that a respondent must show either
that the complainant knew of the respondent’s unassailable right or legitimate
interest in the disputed domain name or the clear lack of bad faith
registration and use, and nevertheless brought the Complaint in bad faith.SeeSydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty.
Ltd., D2000-1224 (WIPO Oct. 31, 2000) and Goldline Int’l, Inc. v. Gold Line,D2000-1151 (WIPO Jan. 4, 2001); or that the complaint was brought
in knowing disregard of the likelihood that the respondent possessed legitimate
interests.SeeSmart Design LLC v.
Hughes, D2000‑0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000); or that the complainant knew
it had no rights in the trademark or service mark upon which it relied and
nevertheless brought the complaint in bad faith. See Zuckerman v. Peeris, DBIZ2002-00245 (WIPO Aug. 12, 2002); HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, in right of her
Government in New Zealand, as Trustee for the Citizens, Organisations and State
of New Zealand, acting by and through the Honourable Jim Sutton, the Associate
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade v. Virtual Countries, Inc.,D2002-0754 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2002).

Not without some hesitation, the Panel is not satisfied that
Complainant was conscious of the fatal weakness of its case when it brought the
Complaint. Respondent’s soccer-related
use of the disputed domain name afforded Complainant some reason to believe it
could establish bad faith use. The
language of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy might well have led Complainant mistakenly
to believe it could establish bad faith registration in reliance on that
paragraph.

Accordingly the Panel declines to make a finding of reverse domain name
hijacking.

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required
under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

[1]Panelist Mausner is of the view that while Respondent
does have rights and legitimate interests in the domain name for some services
due to its prior registration and use of the domain name, it does not have
rights or legitimate interests to use the domain name in connection with television
broadcasting of sports, production of sports television programs, and
entertainment in the nature of ongoing television programs in the field of
sports.Complainant registered service
marks and commenced use of the mark for those services prior to Respondent’s
use of the domain name in those fields.

[2]Panelist Mausner is of the view that use of the domain
name in connection with any of the services for which Complainant has obtained
service mark registration, set forth in footnote 1, would most likely
constitute use in bad faith.However,
such use would not establish registration in bad faith, since Respondent’s
registration of the domain name preceded Complainant’s trademark rights.If Respondent or a transferee of the domain
name were to use it in the future in a manner that is likely to cause confusion
with Complainant’s service marks, Complainant could bring an action for
trademark infringement in the appropriate court.